WytchDokta Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 Which to get, that is the question. P4 is 32-bit. AMD 64 is 64-bit. However, the numbers on the end of the AMD processors don't reflect it's power....Pentium4 3.2 runs at 3.2 (3200). AMD Athlon 3200 does not run at 3.2 (3200) [AFAIK, it runs at something like 2.16]. But I'm still confused....64-bit is twice as fast as 32-bit. So AMD 64 3200 runs twice as fast as a Pentium4 3.2? But I thought the AMD Athlon runs at 2.16 - does the AMD 64 run twice as fast as that (4.32)? Bah, I dunno, I'm confused. Help me here. I need to know though, as I'll be getting me new rig soon.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 I would get a an AMD 64 given the choice... it's more future proof. And no, it doesn't run twice as fast. Go out and look for reviews. There are countless reviews out there that benchmark the two against each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super-Bob Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 Don't use the GHz as a guide. P4s have some "design flaws" so they pump up the speed to compensate, so AMD made their rating system so people could properly compare them. If you can afford definitely get the A64. 32bit chips won't be used much in a few years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CR6 Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 - .:Nightmare:.,May 13 2004, 22:42 ] But I'm still confused....64-bit is twice as fast as 32-bit. So AMD 64 3200 runs twice as fast as a Pentium4 3.2? 64-bit will definitely be faster than 32-bit, but not necessarily "twice at fast". The reason you will not see a difference in running programs on a AMD64 vs P4 right now is that there are next to no mainstream 64-bit operating system/applications/games. Once Windows for 64-bit extensions comes out (maybe at the end of the year) and hardware venders put out 64-bit drivers, we get 64-bit programs and games (like the next-gen Unreal), then you will see the difference. Even though I tend to lean towards building Intel systems, I can say without hesitation that the AMD64 is more future-proof now. It runs current 32-bit programs great, and will run 64-bit in the future. AMD64 platforms have other advantages like HyperTransport, and on-CPU memory controller etc. Intel is currently playing catch up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannik Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Once Windows for 64-bit extensions comes out (maybe at the end of the year) and hardware venders put out 64-bit drivers, we get 64-bit programs and games (like the next-gen Unreal), then you will see the difference. There's always the Microsoft XP 64bit free trialware up for grabs. It's a beta (at best) but it's at least a first step. Some application issues so far, but it's a native 64bit version of XP. Frankly, typical gains on the Athlon64 over the similar clocked P4's/AthlonXP's is about 30%. Good rates, but nothing compared to what's coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WytchDokta Posted May 14, 2004 Author Share Posted May 14, 2004 I'll stick with the AMD 64 then. I don't know many people that got the AMD 64 (infact, I don't know any). Maybe I'll be one of the first to get and AMD 64, I dunno. Mobo for me new rig is Microstar K8T800 NEO by default. That one any good? Man, I'm lovin' this new rig....so much free software with it....MS Works 7, MS Combat Flight Sim 2, Cyberlink Power DVD, Pinnacle Instant CD/DVD. I'm guessing some games will be bundled with the XFX GeForce FX 5900 (128MB DDR Ram) that I getting too. "this model is unbeatable." That's what they say about the rig I buying (it says it on their website). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super-Bob Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 You really shouldn't buy something for the bundled software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WytchDokta Posted May 14, 2004 Author Share Posted May 14, 2004 And who said I'm buying it for the bundled software? I'm not buying it for the bundled software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 - .:Nightmare:.,May 14 2004, 00:39 ] Man, I'm lovin' this new rig....so much free software with it....MS Works 7, MS Combat Flight Sim 2, Cyberlink Power DVD, Pinnacle Instant CD/DVD. I'm guessing some games will be bundled with the XFX GeForce FX 5900 (128MB DDR Ram) that I getting too. That paragraph implies that you are. Good look with the new rig. I cant wait to upgrade mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[TCS]BlackMamba Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 I arnt sure about this but i think that basically AMD take a 2 GHz cpu and over clock it to 3.2 GHz or ther abouts hence it is quite reasonably priced. Dunno if thats true tho im just saying wat ive heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurFACE Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 IMHO AMD VS Intel = More debates and benchmarks. Most reported benchmarks show that the AMD 3200 64bit vs Intel 3.2 have pros and cons. Gaming software is running faster frames per second on AMD unless Intel Extreme Edition which is way over priced. Intel wins in Adobe photoshop and mpegs. The benchmarks prove one thing that neither can state that they are the fastest processor. Marketing schemes have pitted users into believe one over the other. IMHO a home user can't go wrong with either unless they have a stop watch by computer for every software calculation. RID the comparison of who is fastest because the human being will surpass wildest expections. I believe the consumer shouldn't buy into either but just make sure the companies put out a good product that satisyfy our needs rather than our ego's. Going to get out my stop watch because I use photoshop and I play games neither are more importanted than the other. I simply want what I pay for to run smoothly and fast. I believe Intel and AMD are capable of doing that without a hitch. http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040106/...64_3400-35.html as of January. http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=2056 last paragraph has a true message. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WytchDokta Posted May 25, 2004 Author Share Posted May 25, 2004 So AMD 64 it is then! When's AMD 128 or 256 coming out? lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueRose_76 Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 Errr.. irc, you'll only get advantage of a 64bit processor if you run software that is 64bit supported. Otherwise the processor just functions as a 32 processor with the same speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super-Bob Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 Errr.. irc, you'll only get advantage of a 64bit processor if you run software that is 64bit supported. Otherwise the processor just functions as a 32 processor with the same speed. But a 32bit CPU can't run 64bit programs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avey Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 I'm thinking of purchasing a new CPU, would I be better getting a 64bit one now? How long till 64bit programs will become the norm? Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.